I didn't see much AT gun action yet, but it would be nice if the accuracy would be historically accurate.

Speaking of AT guns...
I saw 37mm cannons of Panzer III easily knock out Char B1 Bis tanks from the front, which shouldn't happen as French heavy/medium tanks were very tough.

During the battle of Stonne a B1 Bis called "Eure" engaged a column of 13 german panzers (III and IV - the nearest tank was 30 metres away) and two 37mm AT guns on close range and destroyed all of them, while receiving 140 hits, none of which penetrated its armour.

I was very disappointed to see my 2 Chars getting destroyed after first and second frontal hit.

I'm not so sure actually. Sure having correct accuracies would be historically correct (obviously) and be in the general spirit of the game, which has this realistic feel to it, but I'm not so sure whether it might have a negative impact on gameplay. The thought goes like this:
If you have historical gun accuracy the AT guns will start eating the tanks alive. Obviously countered by making sure the tanks get the same treat, or even the possibility to move out of a guns way. Both of that will decisively impact the performance of tanks against infantry. Infantry that doesn't carry Panzerschrecks or similar contraptions usually gets shred to pieces by tanks rather easily already.

I agree. If tank and anti-tank guns were made historically accurate, Firefight tanks would live very short lives. The whole feel of the game would significantly change. To be consistent, the spotting routines would have to be revisited as well.

Firefight is largely an infantry game. AFVs work well in the infantry support role but AFV v AFV combat is not, IMO, what the game is primarily about. The crude AFV v AFV mechanics are tolerable because of Firefight's infantry focus but any attempt to make one aspect of armour/anti-armour combat (accuracy) more "realistic" immediately leads to a need to improve other aspects (for example, spotting & AI) as well. Then you've got to worry about how all the changes you've made impact back on the infantry combat.

Which is a quite a good idea. It could add much popularity to the game.

Actually, there's a big part of Close Combat series fanbase out there to grab. Most of Close Combats fans are playing against the AI-only and are getting quite fed up with getting x-th of Close Combat remake without a functional AI.

TheKangaroo wrote:I'm not so sure actually. Sure having correct accuracies would be historically correct (obviously) and be in the general spirit of the game, which has this realistic feel to it, but I'm not so sure whether it might have a negative impact on gameplay. The thought goes like this:
If you have historical gun accuracy the AT guns will start eating the tanks alive. Obviously countered by making sure the tanks get the same treat, or even the possibility to move out of a guns way. Both of that will decisively impact the performance of tanks against infantry. Infantry that doesn't carry Panzerschrecks or similar contraptions usually gets shred to pieces by tanks rather easily already.

Both of these aren't real gameplay problems.

Since the infantry already gets shred to pieces, there won't be any real change.

Guns eat tanks alive only if the player/AI makes tactical errors. Since Firefight is mainly an infantry game, tanks are always accompanied by infantry. Dealing with AT guns is infantry's job. They have to destroy guns or at least spot them so that tanks/arty could destroy them.

When I play, I always send infantry forward and keep tanks in reserve. I use them only when my troops destroy or suppress AT guns.

Guns eat tanks alive only if the player/AI makes tactical errors. Since Firefight is mainly an infantry game, tanks are always accompanied by infantry. Dealing with AT guns is infantry's job. They have to destroy guns or at least spot them so that tanks/arty could destroy them.

Are you sure that accounts for AT-guns effectiveness against infantry sufficiently?
I'm in no doubt that you are correct in that it's very possible to overcome them and maybe it would even be interesting to see the guns more effective in defence in general, but somehow it sounds to me like it's going to make things a bit too hard.

TheKangaroo wrote:Are you sure that accounts for AT-guns effectiveness against infantry sufficiently?

Yes. The main advantage of AT guns is their concealment. Destroying spotted guns with tank guns would be easier with realistic accuracy too.

TheKangaroo wrote:I'm in no doubt that you are correct in that it's very possible to overcome them and maybe it would even be interesting to see the guns more effective in defence in general, but somehow it sounds to me like it's going to make things a bit too hard.

Why? Also, aren't tactical wargames better when they are more challenging?

Guns eat tanks alive only if the player/AI makes tactical errors. Since Firefight is mainly an infantry game, tanks are always accompanied by infantry. Dealing with AT guns is infantry's job. They have to destroy guns or at least spot them so that tanks/arty could destroy them.

Are you sure that accounts for AT-guns effectiveness against infantry sufficiently?
I'm in no doubt that you are correct in that it's very possible to overcome them and maybe it would even be interesting to see the guns more effective in defence in general, but somehow it sounds to me like it's going to make things a bit too hard.

That is a good point about ATG effectiveness vs infantry. Many ATGs, such as the 2 pdr and 6 pdr guns used by the British did not have HE shells, only solid shot AP shells, making them nearly worthless against infantry.

As far as I know all of them fire high explosive shells in Firefight, too. They usually aren't as effective as artillery obviously, but their suppressive capability along their (for some types) rather accurate fire can make them eat up infantry, if placed right.